I understand that LFS has locked FPS *Max 100 FPS for example*

When unlocked, with my new Specs, I got up to 130fps, no futher. What is the Max FPS that LFS has limited itself? On various resolutions? Just out of curiosity.

I would say there is no limit so far I am aware.I can even manage in some situations with full details @ 1024*768 and with 8xAA+16AF 220+ FPS.

http://lfsbench.iron.eu.org/?c=completemin

Quote from DEVIL 007 :

I would say there is no limit so far I am aware.I can even manage in some situations 220+ with 8xAA+16AF.

Blimey.

Quote from BigDave2967 :

Blimey.

this is gonna sounds stupid, but the limiter lowers my fps, when i play at scholl i get 30 if im lucky, but if i take it off it goes to 35, even when the limiter is set to 100

I run steady 110- 115


Tick

I did some O/clocking a while back on a "gaming PC" and hit 256fps max I could not get any higher, Ill have to test again sometime soon and post results

SD.

Quote from Jakg :

this is gonna sounds stupid, but the limiter lowers my fps, when i play at scholl i get 30 if im lucky, but if i take it off it goes to 35, even when the limiter is set to 100

I think that's because it skips frames. That's why you can't change the frame limiter by 1.

I once managed to get ~800FPS because I set everything at low detail and put the camera on a simple bit of texture.
I dont think there is a limit because there is no need to.

http://lfsbench.iron.eu.org/

the unofficial LFS benchmark. Good test of system.

JGent used an overclocked AMD 3700 in combination with a Radeon X850 pro to take the minimum detail record with a highest FPS of a somewhat ludacris 407 Frames Per Second.

At maximum detail with 1024x768 res, Sema4 used a apparent stock A64 4000+ in combo with crossfire radeon X1900XTX's to take the glory of the fastest max-detail bench with hitting a peak of 177 Frames Per Second, WITH 6X AA and 16X AF!!

Side Note, my Dell 1.8ghz blazed and incredible average of about 20 FPS, vs Sema4's 177 FPS average.

If you haven't done this test, I recommend it because it gives you something to brag about (beating me) and gives people ideas of what to look for when buying new pc's!

It doesn't matter what you can get the FPS up to, you can't draw more frames then your monitors refresh rate.

So even if you're getting 1000 FPS, if your monitor is refreshing at 60 Hz you're only drawing 60 FPS.

Quote from TravisS :

It doesn't matter what you can get the FPS up to, you can't draw more frames then your monitors refresh rate.

So even if you're getting 1000 FPS, if your monitor is refreshing at 60 Hz you're only drawing 60 FPS.

So the question seems to be: what does your 60fps computer do in scenes where my 1000fps computer can only shove 60 fps to the display?


Could not resist.
Tys

Quote from TravisS :

It doesn't matter what you can get the FPS up to, you can't draw more frames then your monitors refresh rate.

So even if you're getting 1000 FPS, if your monitor is refreshing at 60 Hz you're only drawing 60 FPS.

right. the point of getting massive framerates is two-fold though. You're computer gets lots of FPS now shows headroom so that when the next jump in AI, graphics, physics, whatever comes along, it will handle it. Also, generally, the higher your MAX FPS, the higher you MIN FPS. The MIN FPS is crucial especially during starts and other really busy scenes where the pc is taxed.

My max fps, around 80-90 when i'm alone on track is irrelevent, but my 10 fps at the start really hurts.

Quote from TravisS :

It doesn't matter what you can get the FPS up to, you can't draw more frames then your monitors refresh rate.

So even if you're getting 1000 FPS, if your monitor is refreshing at 60 Hz you're only drawing 60 FPS.

Jesus.....are you really serious.... .Have you ever heard about V-sync off?

Quote from srdsprinter :

My max fps, around 80-90 when i'm alone on track is irrelevent, but my 10 fps at the start really hurts.

IF you have enought powerfull graphic card then its due to your slow CPU.LFS is very CPU internsive games if not the most intesive.
"Just a rumour....or LFS has a buggy 3D engine producing those slowdown at start"

Quote from DEVIL 007 :

IF you have enought powerfull graphic card then its due to your slow CPU.LFS is very CPU internsive games if not the most intesive.
"Just a rumour....or LFS has a buggy 3D engine producing those slowdown at start"

I don't have powerfull anything. Currently I'm running a 5 year old dell with a 1.8GHz P4 + a Sapphire Radeon 9600XT 128MB AGP X4 GPU. I know my pc is Weak, but its about to be replaced with a A64 4800X2 + 7900GT which should hopefully be capable of running LFS for at least a couple of years.

About those starts. I wish they had a full realistic start where you had to balance the car in gear with the clutch in, then start when the lights when out on your own risking a false start pentalty. No computer controlled starts!

I possibly could have got a somewhat higher score if I ran it at super voltage for a few more mhz, but I was more interested in posting at a speed that I used everyday. The graphics card was non overclocked, although my ram was running some decent timmings as it was Gskill rated at ddr 600, think it was running around cas2.5 at 520mhz or something

I no longer have the water cooling system, I now use a zalman 120mm jobbie, I have only lost a few hundred MHZ, but now have no northbridge cooling (decent cooling), however my Gcard remains the same before with an IceQ cooler on it.

Quote from DEVIL 007 :

Jesus.....are you really serious.... .Have you ever heard about V-sync off?

You still only get 60FPS On your display if you have a refresh rate of 60Hz, that is my understanding anyway. Read this:

http://www.neoseeker.com/Hardware/faqs/kb/10,42.html
Vsync should only be disabled when benchmarking so that the videocard and processor are not being limited by the display. Frame rates will appear higher with vsync off but the amount of information displayed is limited by your monitor in that instance. A monitor with an 85 Hz refresh rate will only display 85 frames per second even if the videocard is rendering 400 frames a second. The visual quality may decline as a result also because some frames could be skipped as a result of excess rendering so the interpolation between the first frame and the next frame displayed could be off resulting in 'tearing' or jerkiness.

I run 85Hz...but never mind.I thought that screen can draw like partial image but you can get that tearing effect which is in LFS really minimal oposit to some other titles.
Man can learn every day something new if the neoseekr is right.

When my framerates are beyone 60-80FPS I really doesnt care more even LFS is showing over 200.

I would say the limit is 100 fps because that's what the physics engine runs at. If LFS was running at 200 fps on a screen that has a 200 hz refreshrate, the GPU would always draw two identical frames before moving on to the next scene.

They say the human eye cant pick up on much difference of anything much over 60fps. As long as its at this or above at the start and through the race, your getting about the smoothest performance your brain can process.

Quote from KurtG85 :

They say the human eye cant pick up on much difference of anything much over 60fps. As long as its at this or above at the start and through the race, your getting about the smoothest performance your brain can process.

But you aren't getting the smoothest performance that your PC can process. Just because the human eye can't see all of the frames, doesn't mean they aren't there. 100FPS (compared to 60, for example) in any game usually means smoother input and response, less lag and jitters and headroom that prevents us from seeing any minor slow-downs.
Whether it be a shooting or driving game, smoothness of input, response in gameplay is often the difference between dead and alive, winning or losing.

Quote from KurtG85 :

They say the human eye cant pick up on much difference of anything much over 60fps.

I still doubt that the human brain / eye works in such a way that you would/could describe it as "frames per second".

Hi,

nevermind...got it.

Quote from filur :

I still doubt that the human brain / eye works in such a way that you would/could describe it as "frames per second".

no but, retina works like a low-pass filter and frames are the source digital signal, for those who knows the shannon theorem, this is similar...in few words: images persist on the retina for few moments, if another image comes before the previous image is "disappeared" from retina, then the eye sees them continuosly and more smoothly as much closer the two images come.
science says that human eye has its threshold at 50Hz (50 fps) but also says that this is not a crisp limit, the more fps you get the more stable and fluid you see, i'd say that above 100fps it becomes too unoticeable, but having 100fps makes it more smooth...that's the same reason why running crt monitors at 85Hz or above is good for eyes health...

I found that when I used that when I used Vsync every time the fps moved from 75hz to 50hz or whatever the next increment was it dropped to it felt like a moment of lag. So I plumped for leaving it off. I usually run the game at high res with max settings on everything.